Providing education in Hawai'i

Excelling in school has been a characteristic of mine since I can remember, so it feels ironic that I have been compelled by the recent Hawai‘i State Teachers Association contract vote and ensuing political maneuvering to compose an editorial that allows me to put the pieces together as I see them.

On Jan. 19, 2012, Hawai‘i State Teachers Association (HSTA) members took to local polling stations across the state to vote on the new six year teaching contract that would regulate members' employment through 2017. This came on the heels of haughty accusations from both sides of the collective bargaining table and an eventual agreement that was reached on Jan. 6, 2012 between the state and the association's negotiations team.

The results of the teachers' vote on Jan. 19: "Only 33% of you voted yes, while 67% voted no," wrote HSTA president, Wil Okabe, in a letter to members posted on the HSTA members only website hours after the votes were tallied.

It boiled down to employee evaluations for many teachers who planned to vote against the new contract, but before I clarify this statement please allow me to explain how I might know or be able to infer that fact.

I am engaged to a special education teacher who has been a part of the Hawai‘i Department of Education for five years. This intimate relationship with a DOE employee and HSTA member has virtually made me a part of that school and the institution it represents. Add to that my current enrollment in UH Hilo and the personal conversations I have carried on with professional educators over the years, and I think that what I lack in longitudinal and direct experience with the DOE I make up for with proximity and vested interest.

This all made Jan. 19 an eventful day – even for me. My fiancé explained her position on the contract and the vote during the morning ride to work, and during the ride home (we carpool with another teacher) I found out what some of the opinions floating around my fiancé's school were and what the general atmosphere of a voting station was.

In local school circles, the idea of new teacher assessments had potential supporters of the new contract voting no. Perhaps the prominence that teacher evaluations had been receiving in political and educational rhetoric gave them good reason to feel that way.

Teachers I heard from or heard about did not trust that the evaluation system would be fair. Some distrusted the idea because they do not know where the assessment originated or if it would be appropriate. Many felt that they are not given the right tools to do their job according to federal and state standards.

Can you blame them?

Consider this:

Okabe responded to the overall assessment concern in a statement geared toward describing how to create a quality education system without implementing strategies that would hurt teachers. Instead, Okabe said that, among other prerequisites, "Elected officials must give our students, teachers, and schools the supports and the resources they need to be successful."

The overall concern can be stated as follows: A teacher's performance cannot be evaluated in an employer provided work setting that does not allow the teacher to achieve the level of success being held up as the standard; Doing so is to use an evaluation that is inherently flawed against the employee, or in this case, the teacher.It would be similar to being told that the minimum speed limit is 65 mph and driving slower will result in a monetary traffic citation, but the only vehicles available for use have a maximum speed of 55 mph.What makes matters worse is the same people instituting the law make and distribute the cars!

That leads me directly into why I think money still rules the day: Employee evaluations have recently become the focal point, not of teacher and education improvement, but of the state government of Hawai‘i's attempt to secure the $72 million in federal funding that was awarded to Hawai‘i in August 2010 as part of the federal Race to the Top initiative. When the new contract failed to institute the new evaluations (much needed to bring Hawai‘I back into good standing with the US Department of Education), the state decided to circumvent democracy and get things done their way: by passing a law.

Securing that money by any means necessary became a priority with the delivery of a letter from the US Department of Education dated Dec. 21. The correspondence from Ann Whalen, Implementation and Support Unit director under the US Department of Education, notified Gov. Abercrombie that Hawai‘i's grant was being downgraded to high risk status.

Among other consequences, this demotion in status most importantly turned the grant funding into a reimbursement package; Grant money can no longer be spent up front. The state must now provide receipts and other supporting documentation before it can take money from the Race to the Top grant.

The letter goes on to cite "ongoing delays in finalizing master and supplemental contracts between the Hawaii State Teachers Association (HSTA) and the State [as having] impacted the State's ability to make progress against its scope of work." What was specifically mentioned as a hindrance to this progress? A "performance-based compensation system" and "evaluation systems" were two of the three areas identified. Since Dec. 21, then, instituting teacher evaluations has to have been a high priority for the governor's office.